User talk:Rkitko

Hello, Rkitko, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

... but only if they are simple questions. Hesperian will have most of the answers. Again, welcome. Cygnis insignis 22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Golly, we have a new addict! Welcome aboard. Hesperian 00:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Should? - I don't know. In article titles, I always convert "æ" to "ae", and I recently converted accents where they were obviously intended only as pronunciation hints.[1] But Cygnis doesn't. I'm not sure there is a right answer... but I strongly recommend maintaining a single convention per document, and Bot. Mag. is Cygnis's baby. So I suggest following his example when you add to Bot. Mag., my example when you add to Bot. Reg., and keeping your own counsel when you start something new. Hesperian 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Alas, I fear the above could be misinterpreted. "Follow our example" was not intended as an imperative. If you think the way either of us is doing things is stupid or inconvenient or cannot be adapted to whatever it is you're working on, then please help us make it better. Hesperian 02:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe Cygnis abandoned his practice of naming by plate number alone on 4 September. Hesperian 03:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

True, it seems wise to put name in the title. It was much easier without it - more accurate with it. My approach here has been to model works on the original, then deviate from that as required. I found this helped the decision making process, without the need for my editorial input. Hesperian's point about following the current model is a good one, experiment with a page for discussion purposes, but consistency is important in the final version. Any input is welcome to Talk:Curtis's Botanical Magazine, the undertaking is in very early stages. Changes have been introduced as problems arose, there is no stable model or naming convention. If you fancy doing some of Bot.Mag., follow the most recent creations. Then give me your views on the structure. Something else that may help ...

Can I suggest that you start a small work, I found it a helpful process. I did a couple, then asked a very experienced contributor to review it. I now see the merit in the conventions at en:ws, you might invent some new ones in the process. I have a book in mind, it just needs converting from the Gutenberg version. The cover is here, the gutenberg text is here. I can get the original and proof read it for you. Let me know if you want a hand starting it. I will post at en:wp on the help you gave me earlier. Cygnis insignis 14:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Curt. Bot. Mag.

Nice one–Stylidium fasciculatum. I proof read the title, dedication, and page. Only very minor corrections were needed. I had a look at the index, they are a pain to do, you will find the use of ellipsis [...] in my lazy versions. I'm think regex is the way to go in making indices, but I used find and replace on the 'returns' to add code to each item. I will leave the taxonomy to you, APNI, especially after the ribbing I got from some rouge admins yesterday :o ; but I should be able to help with this:
Professor <span style="font-variant: small-caps;">Lindley</span> and
Professor L<span style="font-variant: small-caps;">indley</span>
should produce the same result. The font-variant affects only the lower case characters, at least that is my understanding of the code. I also changed the links at the index, the one you modelled it on is for 4 volumes and it needed 'relative links':

../Volume ##/Exempli gratia 

The notes page was very rushed, feel free to change or add to them. You will find a note in the blather there that explains why there are currently two main pages, The Botanical Magazine and Curtis's Botanical Magazine, an accepted reference for any page is "Botanical Magazine. ####." so I am leaning toward this form of title:
Botanical Magazine 3816 Stylidium fasciculatum
I agree with the view that Æ, accents, &c. should not appear in the titles, I just haven't done it so far. It will make searches go awry, but I have left them in the content. I had never noticed accents before, I am wondering whether they were added by a reader?! The scan is not showing me either way. Sorry to swamp you with info. If anything is clear from the above, it's that I need a lot of feedback for the guidelines. Cheers Cygnis insignis 22:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the ratings are related to things I haven't done, you were very thorough. Cygnis insignis 23:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I supposed to report on the talk page which species this description now relates to?

I have been adding this to the notes parameter of the header; see for example A Specimen of the Botany of New Holland/Embothrium silaifolium. You can do the same if you want to. Hesperian 04:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[conflicted and partly redundant edit] I was called away, here it is anyway.

If the species name is not current, I would follow Hesperian's lead and put - This species is now known as [Genera species] - in the notes section of the header. There is an example in Smith's 'Embothrium buxifolium' This usually displays any information the reader should know about text, giving the current (and linked) binomen seems sensible. Your page on Stylidium cited Brown's Prod. Fl. Nov. Holl., but it also notes some confusion in the IDs. I didn't know what to make of it, but if it is Brown's species then no problem - or note.

I will make a list of created pages somewhere. If you add to it, someone can read and upgrade your work. You could even do the pages without the volumes and index parent, I am developing a routine for that bit. Btw–nice job with the index and title layout, you gave me some ideas and cracked something I could not. The volumes will be patchy for a while yet, but I aim to enhance any existing pages. If any higher resolution Stylidium images come along, I will upgrade those as well. Cygnis insignis 07:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Darwin

You know, I may have come up with an easy smallish project to begin as per your earlier suggestion, which also ties in with most of my Wikipedia-related edits. Any advice on adding Charles Darwin's Insectivorous Plants to Wikisource? I was thinking of using the Project Gutenberg text [1] while using the botanicus.org text for corrections and style [2]. I assume I should use subpages for the different chapters, the TOC, etc? What do you think? --Rkitko 01:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That gutenberg has chosen to use it, and others mirror it, would seem to indicate it is worth doing. And the opportunity to enhance the work is great, there could be any number of reasons why someone would access it, so it is worth having in a mediawiki space. We could fix up the errors too ;-) It is a big document, even I would not consider trying to make a justified double column of text. The gutenberg text has line breaks mid-sentence, if you remove them there will a spacing issue (which is fixable).

I avoided the problem that may emerge when a line-
break is made in the text - does the hyphen stay in the text?
I am fastidious when it comes to format, use your own judgement (of course). Anyway, I could not find hyphens, so 'flat' may be the way to go. While I was waiting for it to finish loading, I considered the merits of having a document that could be split and still remain searchable. I also see plently of wikilink potential. The only problem I imagine you would have is the distraction of a topic in which you are so deeply interested. A couple of my efforts (there are only a few) have been in things I was not especially interested in, I found the distance helpful to concentrating on the style and structure. This was my thinking when I tried to foist Pelloe's orchids on you, but you are probably right to go for something you are currently focused on. You will need to crop the images out of the scans, that will be the least of your worries. The index links can be piped to go to chapters rather than pages, the toc is even less problematic. But I would not consider it smallish.

• In short!–trial a couple of pages and then ponder on how to do the rest. You will probably find a bit of thought and page milling will save you some agony.

I will also keep an eye out for your carnivores, I added this to wikipedia the other day: The specimens are carefully illustrated, painted, and described, yet her Drosera and Cephalotus were presented as "bloodthirsty savages of plant life". Couldn't resist inserting that into a new article. Best regards, Cygnis insignis 16:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)